addes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 above their power as if they gave more then they were able to spare this is a strain of the text yet three times used by the Doctor Once here exemplarily liberal above what they were well able to do And again n. 8. Willingly liberal above their power And once more p. 206. n. 12. Liberall of their own accord above their power But the words in the Original import no such thing that they were liberal much less liberal above their power but thus they are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. which Beza and we in English translate thus For to their power I bear record yea and beyond their power they were willing of themselves praying us with much intreaty that we would receive the gift c. They were willing to their power yea and beyond their power that is their will was greater then their power and beyond their power But the Dr. would have us believe they were liberal above their power and gave more then they were able which as it is a kind of contradiction so it is against the rule of Charity which all say begins at home Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self not above thy self that 's an excess in Charity But this gloss fits the Doctors opinion well that Free-will-offerings are under no command and so under no Rule But come to his answers to me I said it was answered in part by what was said afore It is not the question which is of Worship not of actions of civil life He sayes first p. 192. n. â—… An answer in part is no satisfactory answer and so this needs not to be considered But if I had listed to stand upon it this was a full answer when it was quite beside the question 2. He sayes There is a parity of reason from one act of Christian performance to another Mark how he waves the question by putting in performance instead of Worship There is no parity of reason from an act of Charity a civil performance to an act of Worship a Religious performance What ever there may be in Alms there may be no 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 somewhat of Worship above the Law yet the Doctor sayes There may by Analogy be the same in matters of Christian Worship as in matter of charity which is one principal ground of his so many mistakes 3. But then another evasion This of works of mercy is generally defined to be in a Christian performance how warily an act of Worship set in the front of such Matt. 6.1 * See infr p. 195. n. 11 That rule seems to have a propriety to that particular time and is not a rule for all other times appointed to be exercised on the Lords day as a work of the day 1 Cor. 16.2 stiled by Paul a Sacrifice Phil. 4.18 c. But first why in a Christian performance is not an act of mercy by an Heathen an act of Worship as well as by a Christian 2. A good man a Christian is merciful to his beast is that also an act of Worship 3. Is the work of mercy Matth. 6.7 an act of Worship because it is set in the front of such why he knows that Protestants deny Fasting which is one of them to be a part of Worship but an help or circumstance of worship yet that is nearer to worship then works of mercy 4. Appointed to be exercised on the Lords day but is it not a work of any day as well 5. Stiled a Sacrifice but sure not properly but allusively as an imperate act of Piety not elicite as was said above what 's this but a Chaos of confusion to jumble the two Tables together Worship and Charity 6. But to remove all scruple he wishes that after the custome of the primitive Apostolick Church this Alms be presented to God in the Sacrament and then as certainly it will be a branch of Christian Worship and his instance shall be set to that c. But this is as weak as the former no act of Charity when ever or how ever done can properly be a branch of Worship unless he will confound the two Tables of the Law He said before it was a work of the Lords day why may not the Day as well as the Sacrament make it a branch or an act of Worship I hope all acts of mercy on the Sabbath watering a beast or pulling him out of a pit yea or visiting the sick is not thereby made an act or branch of Worship especially when that Time it self is by the Doctor made but a circumstance of Worship And now we proceed to the next To my further answers he replies first p. 193. n. 5. The question is certainly this whether ceremonies and festivals in a Church are criminous if they be not commanded by God No his conscience can tell him this is his grand and gross mistake the question is of Will-worship like to the Free-will-offerings which were parts or degrees of commanded Worship which his Ceremonies and Festivals are here again denied to be and called circumstances not acts of Worship But his alms were in the last number made certainly branches of Worship sacrifices acts of Worship What interfeering is here 2. The reason is the same of circumstances and degrees if then uncommanded degrees may be lawful uncommanded circumstances must be lawful also Still the former mistake that there is the same reason of circumstances and degrees of Worship when as degrees of Worship such were those Free-will-offerings were Worship acts and branches of Worship but so are not circumstances 3. The next is founded on the same mistakes that either alms is a branch of Worship or that there is the same reason for Worship and for Charity both which are denied and disproved 4. The same answer may serve to this Worship and Charity are ill compared But I adde the degrees of alms are generally commanded with respect to mens abilities and opportunities but so are not his Will-worship The utmost degree of mercy in those cases is not uncommanded though it cannot easily be defined for it must be resolved by abilities and necessities which is not easie to determine either how much I am bound to give without defect without excess or what is the necessity of the receiver of it as I must give according to my ability wherein we are apt to deceive our selves so I must not give to the prejudice of my self or family or others that need which yet is sometime done for vain-glory and hope to merit by Papists and others The horns of his Dilemma are easily broken n. 7. p. 194. or turn'd against the wall I say 1. His Will-worships for which he pleads uncommanded Worship are under no command to be done but under prohibition not to be done 2. I think there is no high degree of mercy not the highest that he will pitch on but it is commanded in cases aforesaid the mercy it self is under a special
principle upon the second Commandment which will fully conclude this point which must be often repeated to silence his confidence this it is God is to be worshipt in a way peculiar to him and appointed by him Then all Worship not commanded by him is forbidden let the Doctor now go on and say Certainly none no word sounds that way unless every Ceremony devised by man c. not particularly under precept be presently metamorphosed into a graven Image But the thing is proved sufficiently above by Scripture and testimony of most approved Authors to which I remit him And now let him consider how well he hath vindicated his six reasons for a good sense of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this one place Sect. 17 18. We have done with the first undertaking c. That 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well rendered by Superstition by the Romanists and by the learned and ever renowned Master Calvin may easily be made good from the definition of Superstition given by the School-man which is justified above and by the description of it by Mr. Calvin which is this Vox ipsa Superstitio c. The word Superstition may seem to be so called because not contented with the manner of Worship prescribed it heaps up a superfluous heap of vain things Calv. Instit l. 1. c. 12. n. 1. For Will-worship partakes of the definition it is a vice contrary to Religion in the excess and is an addition of superfluous and vain Worship And I said not Superstition and Will-worship are all one as he charges me to say but clearly otherwise Superstition or will-worship p. 157. n. 6. are more general then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for Daemonum cultus which is but one species of Superstition They differ as genus and species all Will-worship is Superstition but all Superstition is not Will-worship strictly taken as was discoursed above ad p. 41. n. 1. But if Will-worship be a species of Superstition they that interpreted the word so did but call the Species by the name of the genus which is very ordinary And that Superstition is more general then 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is evident because that 's but one species of Superstition there are many more given by the School-man and himself above But now we shall hear him distribute wil-worship into species The truth is n. 7. that the general Will-worship as that comprehends all worship uncommanded by God hath several species under it Jewish out-dated and so now uncommanded Worship Heathenish forbidden and so uncommanded Worship and finally Christian acceptable yet not commanded acts or circumstances or degrees of Worship Here we have three sorts of VVill-worship Jewish Heathen Christian The first uncommanded the second forbidden the third not commanded But first the Jewish out-dated Worship is forbidden so the Doctor said above p. 19. n. 32. and so agrees with Heathen Will-worship 2. The Christian is no VVorship but acts or circumstances of Worship commanded and then it is no VVill worship upon this he brings all to two species VVill-worship will-devised VVorship may be of two sorts as the generical word VVorship may either true or false Heathen or Christian and as the one is ill so the other is certainly good But first Worship is either true or false true when commanded by God false when devised by men that 's VVill-worship and will he divide false-worship into true or false Christian or Heathen 2. Are Christian or Heathen the same with true or false the one ill the other good Is there no good VVill-worship among the Heathens no bad among Christians so it seemes by the Doctors words 3. He gave us above six if not species * He calls them six species of VVill-worship p. 97. n. 14. yet notions of VVill-worship ad p. 96. n. 6. and now he brings them first to three then to two as if he were confounded and knew not where to fix And to speak properly VVill-worship hath no species though Superstition have onely there may be some particulars as there are of false-worship which the Doctor may call Individua if he please but not species as ergo VVill-worship is Heathenish Jewish or Christian this is not a distribution into species but in adjuncts or subjects Now true it is the Doctor takes VVill-worship in a good sense for true and lawful Worship but I take it in an ill sense for false worship and the Doctor must not beg his sense nor I mine both must prove it or relinguish it And now let the Reader judge who is in the right I shall but propound this argument and leave it to him If worship be therefore onely true because it is commanded by God then all worship not commanded by God devised by men is false But the Autecedent is most certain the consequence also undeniable to any reasonable man let who will make out the conclusion But hear again The falseness consists in its being devised by mans will p. 158. n. 10 not simply but in opposition to Gods i. e. when it is forbidden this we accept of and say all worship devised by mans will stands in opposition to the will of God and is forbidden the Negative part of the second Commandment is God will not be served by any worship not prescribed by himself and no addition may by man be made to the rule of worship The Doctor hath so long dream'd of uncommanded Worship in contradistinction to forbidden Worship as if VVorship uncommanded by God the same with devised by men were not forbidden when as it is therefore forbidden because not commanded by God as I am forced by the Doctors importunity to repeat too often No says he VVhat is forbidden is more then not commanded It is so in the second Table but in the first of worship not commanded and forbidden is all one The Doctor therefore supposes what is not to be granted when he says n. 11. That worship which is supposed not to be forbidden is resolved not to be false He must say that worship devised by men which is not forbidden is not false but that implies that some worship devised by men is not forbidden which now he may see if he will to be false Gods not commanding he says implies his permission and so a liberty allowed by God c. If this were true the Heathens and Turks VVorship were all lawful for they are not commanded ergo permitted He will say They are forbidden which is more then not commanded This is not to be seen in that former proposition but I close with him and say All worship not commanded is forbidden I conclude this Section with a memento to the Reader to take notice how much the Doctor hath forgot himself to plead for VVill worship worship devised by men which both is contrary to his own assertions heretofore and presently again he pleads not for new sorts or kindes of Worship not commanded by God and to his present designe
Scripture or right reason is he imperfect that falls short of five being a Jew or six being a Christian and yet he that arrives at five or six yea the lowest fraction of that degree said to be perfect seeing he also falls short of the eighth which is supposed the highest degree of perfection 4. Divinty would rather say supposing Zeal and Piety to require eight degrees he is onely perfectly zealous and perfectly pious who arrives at the eighth degree and all these that fall short more or less of that degree to be more or less not perfect for that they are not but imperfect and so no degrees of perfection what is less then it ought to be is in vitio so far faulty and sinful as we shall hear anon As fractions therefore in Arithmetick are imperfect numbers so those degrees of Zeal and Piety in Divinity are imperfect virtues there may be degrees of virtues Zeal Piety c. but no degrees of perfection But enough and too much of this fine speculation The next about degrees of mercy is bottom'd upon the same airy speculation 1. p. 205. n. 12 That there is any highest degree of mercy determin'd by the Law to which a man is bound which being done a man may exceed that The Law is not determinative but according to circumstances requires more or less and then bindes and so it is not above command 2. That to give above a mans ability and the necessity of the poor is no breach of charity in the excess when as the Law limits charity to others by that to our selves 3. That the Macedonians did give above their abilitie which the text says not as was noted above I did not understand that precept n. 13. Be merciful as your heavenly Father c. in regard of equality but quality and in regard of proportioning our mercy according to the circumstances which command our mercy as Deut. 15 8. Thou shalt open thine hand wide unto him and shalt surely lend him sufficient for his need in that which he wanteth That 's one act of charity another is giving ver 10. Thou shalt surely give him c. The words are more full in the Original Opening thou shalt open thy hand and lending thou shalt lend him how much enough for his want that which is wanting to him giving thou shalt give unto him That is freely fully according to thy ability and his necessity But what if the Doctor do this and then will be yet more merciful is that excess and a fault I had said Circumstances considered I am bound to supply his need and to give less were neither prudent nor pious what ever it were to give more This last the Doctor takes hold on He dare not pronunce it an offence against either of those virtues to go beyond this but breaks off abruptly what ever it were to give more I did not then affirm it to be an offence to give more because it was in question but if he had read on the next Section I brought here his own confession That it 's possible to offend against prudence in too prodigal a giving and in too parsimonious against Piety That says as much as I intended that there may be an offence in the excess in giving too much as in too little a defect to which he says nothing but labours to evade it as we shall see presently But in his way a man can hardly offend either in the defect or excess Not in the defect if he give but a little yet charity or mercy having a latitude and degrees he that arrives at the lowest degree or fraction of a degree is not onely merciful but perfect in mercy as well as he that goes to an higher degree Not in the excess for he had newly said n. 12. Supposing any sum that in all those circumstances two men are bound to give yet certainly one may lawfully exceed that sum and give more even beyond his ability and this not be sinful but more acceptable c. Why then should the Doctor blame if he do blame some devout Papists who give away all and go themselves a begging as thinking it a very meritorious work more acceptable more rewardable yet this the Doctor addes As I am bound to supply his present wants so I may make provision also against his future necessities c. He sayes too little in the last he may yea must make provision against his future necessities for he wants for the future as well as at present and an able man is bound to provide for that The Samaritane gave him a good pattern for this who did not onely power in wine and oyl for his present need but left money and charge to the hoast to take care of him with promise to repay it Go thou and do likewise is our Saviours inference and command and then not above a command Sect. 42. And here he confesses it's possible to offend c. THat vertue and so charity consists in a middle point between two extremes he cannot deny but still flies to his old refuge not in an indivisible point there is a latitude of degrees c. To which enough hath been said afore All he excepts to is That righteousness of God p. 206. n. 14 doth not use to punish those facts which have no Law observable by man to forbid them c. I did not say they had no Law observable by man but thus If it swerve from that point to either extreme it is more or less a fault though not observed perhaps not observable by men My meaning was that a man might easily swerve from the middle point the strait line wherein vertue consists and very hardly observe the declinations which yet is punishable c. especially when some vices have the very similitude of vertues The Doctor seemes to think that in natural men the Law being blotted and blurred in their hearts the Lord may not in justice punish them for what they cannot now read just like his other Divinity I said moreover Prudence it self being a vertue in our created nature then certainly commanded to do what was fittest and so it doth still that what is short of the Rule by our imprudence is a fault c. To which just nothing But enough to the next I said two things in answer to the objection propounded by him p. 207. n. 15. That it seemed to touch upon 1. The mercenary 2. The meritorious way of Romanists c. To the latter he says little yet sure the Romanists do hold merit of good works though required by the Law or Gospel how much more of works and perfections of vertues above the Law and Gospel wherein how the Doctor agrees with them let him consider I can see no difference but that the Doctor denies the word merit which they openly profess For the other I say it is too mercenary to look onely or first at the reward rather then at vertue and to
describing a party of men known well enough to the nation Thus he begins If some men The opposers of the Ceremonies of our Church against whom that tract was prepared Infr. p. 114 n. 7. as they will abide no Rites so they would avow no quarrels but c. Who knows not that he means those godly learned conscientious men who opposed the Ceremonies of our Church So he sayes expresly here n. 5. All that have opposed our Church in point of Rites and Ceremonies and branded the innocent as guilty of no less crime then Superstition This part of the charge is false for they could and did abide some Rites as we said above and did avow no quarrels but for what they thought Scripture would give them particular directions and commands But he goes on and worse And consequently if they would not judge or damn their brethren when neither Christ nor his Writ c. condemnes them This is both false and uncharitable to censure men as judging and damning their brethren when neither Christ nor his Writ condemn'd them when as they were men of humble and meek Spirits readier to be judged and condemn'd by their opposites and patiently to suffer it It followes which till it be done it must be expected that they afore described who have learn't one of the Divels Attributes that of Satan adversary or enemy man will also advance to another that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 calumniator and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accuser of the brethren c. What could he have said worse if he had called them Divels Is there yet any more dregs in the bottome of the cup yes a little very charitable stuff It now being by some men resolved if the testimony of the rest of their lives may be believed that there is no capital damning sin worth heeding or abstaining from but Superstition See p. 90. n. 5. c. Now Reader is this a Satyre of a vice and not a description of persons or a party can the Doctor with perfect peace of minde review those Sections and see no breach of duty none against whom he hath offended Non equidem in video miror magis Onely one thing more and we shall part a while The Doctor sayes He can very well abstain from making use of the advantage given him of more then recriminating And wel he may for he hath done it before saying I have charged that foul sin of Superstition upon the Doctor personnally and enlarged it to his party which must needs involve all the obedient Sons of the Church of England c. To which I answer first For the Doctor himself I have charged him with nothing but what is avowed by himself to be his opinion and practice and what is proved really to be superstitious according to the true notion of the word amongst reformed Orthodox Divines These are my words in this last Section which if it be not true why did not the Doctor deny the charge and make it appear that his own principles do not hold out the nature of Superstition his own opinion and practice do not conclude him guilty of what is laid to his charge This is very observable that where-ever I charge him to be superstitious he moves it and takes no notice of it as will appear hereafter 2. As for his party he takes too much Honor to himself to think I meant all the obedient Sons of the Church of England No there is a party in that party that condemn the Doctor for his Superstition as much as I do But the party that I joyn'd with the Doctor were those too forward Sons of the Church of England who were if God had not staid them running away from their Mother to Rome both in Doctrine and Worship and by all modest and pious men even of Episcopal notion judged as Hetordox in the one and as Superstitious in the other In a word I shall make the Doctor to be his own Accuser in the premises and his own Judge in the conclusion of any charge I lay against him And so I now rest Exercitation 2. Of Will-worship Sect. 1. Had the Reverend and Learned Doctor as it became him distinguished the words either 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek or Will-worship in English c. HE now begins to do what before he had forgot p. 93. n. 3. or neglected to distinguish till he hath confounded the words more then before and yet not telling us clearly in what sense he takes it as he promised n. 2. First Betwixt Worship on the one side and on the other side external Ceremonies or Circumstances of it which are not parts but accidents of Worship Where he does not distinguish of the word Worship as was required in it self that we might know what he means by Worship in the word Will-worship but between Worship and Ceremonies or Circumstances of Worship which are not parts but accidents of Worship as he sayes And yet some Ceremonies and Circumstances are made by him and called Worship as we shall hear 2. He distinguishes Worship indeed after as confused a manner when he sayes Worship whether the Theological vertue or some act thereof together with the degrees and frequency of those acts As if a man should distinguish Justice his present instance thus Justice is either 1. The Moral vertue it self 2. Or some act thereof 3. Or some degree or frequency of that act Were these several species of Justice or not rather the same vertue distinguished by accidental differences So the Acts of Worship and the degrees thereof c. are either the same kinde of Worship or but accidental differences of the same Worship 2. In his distinction of Worship against Ceremonies and Circumstances he is no lesse confused For 1. Ceremonies and Circumstances of Worship are not one and the same which yet he seemes to make them as was said above 2. Ceremonies and Circumstances were sometimes parts of Worship and so Worship Ceremonial as the Sabbath and Temple time and place after mentioned in his Illustration by Justice c. And Ceremonies however are commonly taken for external Worship as I said above and then he should have distinguished Worship thus Worship is either Moral and Substantial or Ceremonial and Accidental and then his Ceremonies had been not onely parts but species of Worship And such indeed he makes them however he dissemble the matter here But who is the wiser by all this confusion who can tell for he tells us not what is meant by Worship in the word Will-worship It must be either the vertue or some act or degree or frequencie of it on the one side or a Circumstance no part but accident of Worship which of them I know not Perhaps his Illustration will spring some light As in Justice it may signifie 1. The vertue it self 2. Some Act of that vertue Or 3. the degree thereof and frequent repetition of the Acts of it but for the Circumstances of time or
under no command and being voluntary oblations and Free-will-offerings which sayes the Doctor may expect greater reward in Heaven then any commanded service Besides the opposition of Godliness to those exercises argues they were considered as ill and hurtful by the Apostle For abstinence from meat and marriage those bodily exercises in the Doctors conceit of them are great parts of Religion Piety Devotion and therefore could not well be opposed to Godliness the Apostle certainly looks at something before under the notion of bodily exercise else he could not say so abruptly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for bodily exercise before intended and expressed in some other terms whether the Jewish observations or abstinences from some meats ver 3. as Chrysost or those abstinences of fore-prophesied hereticks from meats and marriage ver 3. Ad p. 109. n. 4. profits nothing that is is hurtful and destructive as the Doctor said above And these are the grounds of my Interpretation If the Doctor have any better let him impart them or enjoy his own opinion Somewhat he sayes to that which I said of making those abstinences parts of Religion or Worship which he calls an help at a dead lift p. 130. n. 10. n. 11. and disputes against that notion saying They that make abstinence from marriage a thing acceptable to God and a state of perfection do not count it a Worship unless in a genervl sense as every vertuous act performed to God may be stiled Worship and so this a Will-worship Here first we have a distinction of Worship which should have come long ago that we might know in what sense the Doctor took it when he speaks of Will-worship Something was said of the word worship p. 93. n. 3. but then it was onely distinguished from external Ceremonies or Circumstances which are not parts but accidents of Worship And nothing was called Worship but the vertue it self or some act thereof together with the degrees and number of those acts But now we have a distinction of Worship in a special and a general sense as every vertuous act of the second Table may be stiled Worship which is most improperly 2. What meanes the Doctor to talk of Will-worship and voluntary Worship if they be not Worship but in a general sense as every virtuous act of righteousness c. may be stiled Worship that is not an Elicite act of Religion or Worship but an Imperated act of it as visiting the poor and widow is by Saint James called pure Religion If thus he meant why did he not tell us so at first to prevent both mistake and trouble 3. Those abstinences forbidden by our Apostle were formerly acts of Religion and parts of Worship properly and were so held out still by the false Teachers not Worship as every vertuous act may improperly b◠called Worship 4. The Papists for certain do make them parts of Worship place Religion in their Caelibate Fastings and Religtous Orders c. not in a generall sense but proper and special Worship Will the Doctor yeild that they that do so make them parts of Worship are superstitious and this is unlawful Will-worship I shall ask no more Lastly to make things more acceptable to God because not commanded to place more vertue and more perfection in things then God hath placed in them is confessed to be superstitious But this the Doctor does sufficiently and this we call Will-worship And that we may not go far for an instance the Doctor makes Fasting a Sacrifice n. 12. and a species of Worship as well as prayer and almsgiving and calls it an acceptable worship of God as Papists do p. 130 n. 13. See p. 14. n. 20. Fasting and Alms two sorts of Gods Worship which our Divines deny to be Worship but onely an help and furtherance to worship By the way the Doctor as he makes Worship of that which is not Worship so he degrades some Worship and makes it none p. 131. n. 14. Hearing of Sermons is not any acknowledged branch of Worship I know he addes the word bare to hearing but bare hearing of the word by profession is Worship though not pure and right Worship as bare praying with the lips is Worship but vain Worship In vain do they Worship me c. and bare preaching of the word is Worship though not true VVorship But the Doctor makes hearing of Sermons no Worship when he sayes Hearing of Sermons in case it should be taught or assume to be a part of Gods VVorship As if to teach it to be a part of VVorship were an assumption or presumption Indeed this is some of the old language that Preaching and hearing of Sermons was no Worship but the whole VVorship of God stood in reading and hearing the Liturgie That the Doctor placed the illness of those bodily exercises in this when they are taught as necessary to the defaming of meats and marriage I found no fault with but that he placed it in that onely I expected that he should have spoken to my question p. 133. n. 19. If they taught them not in that sense but onely placed Religion and the VVorship of God in them as Papists do were they not ill To this he sayes just nothing but empties his Note-book to prove what is not denied By all Interpreters I meant the greatest part p. 134. n. 22. and he cannot name any it seems before Grotius a Neoterick n. 23. c. Cassandrian Authour As for his question and what here he again repeats it is spoken to before upon the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall onely adde that he varies the question by altering and putting in words not in the text piety for wisdom and in respect of Will-worship the words are a shew of Wisdom in Will-worship that is those abstinences wicked enough made a Worship by those men And here it is that some would have the adversative 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to be understood but in Will-worship that is in False-worship devised by the will of men it hath a shew of Wisdom but is but Will worship which supposes the VVill-worship to be ill and impious And the Doctor himself sayes n. 24. I confess that supposing VVill-worship as ill as the Diatribist would have it a thing may be foolish or impious in respect of VVill-worship To clear this change but the word VVill-worship into * So the vulgar and others read it Superstition or Idolatry and then ask may not those abstinences have a shew of Wisdom in respect of Superstition in them or and yet be but Superstition which most Interpreters take to be the sense of the words Now Superstition amongst Christians is alwayes taken in an ill-sense as hath been proved above put another like question may not worshipping of Angels have a shew of Wisdom in Idolatry or and yet be but Idolatry All the question then is whether there be any VVill-worship good which as we deny it concerns him to
them let them produce that warrant and we are satisfied warrant I say not for circumstances of Worship which is yeilded but for their Will-worship uncommanded Worship Before then that this instance will serve the Doctors turn he must prove these things first That this Free-will-offering of David was a part of Worship for so they are asserted to be under the Law and yet he will not be obliged to make good the parallel so far for his Rites and Festivals p. 186. n. 19.2 That Davids intention was sure a pious intention being absolute which pious intention he asserts numb 9. 3. That it was commended and accepted by God as it was absolutely intended by him It was indeed approved by Nathan ver 3. but rashly without consulting with God and therefore both Nathan and David are better informed and in a sort rebuked for that resolution to undertake such a business without command from God If Nathan failed in his allowance of Davids purpose as it 's evident he did then David also failed in his too absolute purpose which God after disallows And thence we may raise this argument It was not lawful for David to purpose absolutely the building any Religious house for Gods Ark without Gods special command or warrant therefore it is not lawful for men to institute Religious Ceremonies without the same warrant I still say a Religious House and Religious Ceremonies which are thereby put into a state of Religion and so parts of Worship which meer circumstances are not and such the Doctor says he makes time and place but indeed makes them parts of Worship as we have often said Hence it is that n. 2. he talks of uncommanded acts of Piety and n. 9. makes Davids intention a Pious intention and being uncommanded an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Will-worship of God parallel to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in debate He must not mean it of an Imperate act of Piety or Religion for that is no part of Worship and may be in a civil thing or vertue as acts of Charity visiting the sick c. are by St. James called pure Religion But of an elicite act of Piety which is it self a part of Religion or Worship but then it holds not parallel with his Will-worship which is denied to be any part of Worship As for example if a company of people wanted a convenient place to meet in for Religious performances Aquila or Philemon accommodate them with a room in their house or some good devout Centurion builds them a Church This were an act of Piety not elicite but imperate which doth not make the place a part of Religion or Worship but an accommodation to Worship The instance of Paul not taking Hire of the Corinthians when he might c. I said was as little to the purpose for it was not in a matter of Worship p. 184.2 but an action of common life and also a due debt For the first he answers He no where said it was in an action of common life it is misreported c. Let him review his 30 s of Will-worship and he will finde that he says There be many particulars both in the Worship of God and in actions of common life Particulars he means of Free-will-offerings Now the first thing he would have observed in them was That they were a part of the Worship of God s 29. to which he ought to have confined himself and not to go out into actions of common life which have no plea to be parts of Worship and this instance of maintenance I took and still take to be one of them and not to his purpose What says he to it 1. He appeales to my self Whether I can doubt whether an Apostles exercising his office be not an act of Worship Truly I did not formerly doubt it but the Doctor hath said something to make me scruple it for he seems at least to deny that preaching by a minister is any part of Worship Hearing and Preaching are relates and either both or neither parts of Worship See p. 131. n. 14. But Hearing of Sermons is not says he any acknowledged branch of Worship Some body would hence infer Then Preaching is no branch of Worship It may be he will say Apostolical and perhaps Episcopal preaching is a part of Worship but not of Inferiour officers If he will say so let him enjoy his own opinion My answer is otherwise I meant that maintenance and so refusing or receiving it was a matter of common life and not a matter of Worship whereof we speak But mark his inference And consequently any but circumstance thereof a circumstance of Worship Who can once doubt but any circumstance of Worship is a circumstance of Worship there is no great depth in this But we are speaking of Free-will-offerings which were parts of VVorship and he tells us of a circumstance of VVorship such was Pauls cloak when he wore it in Preaching and his cap c. circumstances of Worship yet more Pauls not receiving hire was either an action or in an action of Worship or both and so surely a Free-will-offering I list not to make any inference upon this but leave it to the Reader That his refusing his hire at that time and place was a due debt n. 4. I proved from learned Chamier and from the Scripture it self But our new glosses will not down with this learned Antiquary He had rather run into errour with some Ancients then hold and speak truth with Moderne Divines Let us hear their and his gloss the text is 1 Cor. 9.17 For if I do it willingly I have a reward but if against my will a dispensation of the Gospel is committed unto me i. e. what is my reward then c. The Comment is this The preaching of the Gospel was committed to him and was under precept and so no Free-will-offering of his That is his meaning when he saith if I do this willingly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a volunteer so saith Theophilact If I had not been Commissionated to Preach but had done it of my self if I did Preach the Gospel without any command so no necessity to do so if of my self spontaneously I have the reward this would be rewardable in me i. e. the very Preaching would without any other honourable circumstance to inhanse it but if voluntarily if I am Commissionated to Preach and so my Preaching be an act of obedience to a plain command and so necessary ver 16. then all that can be said of me is being trusted with a stewardship I discharge it it is manifest that I do it not spontaneously but I perform my Lords command c. And so there is nothing of excellence in this this wil bring me no reward what in this whole matter shall bring me in any reward To which he answers that Preaching the Gospel I do it freely without making it chargeable to the Auditors that I make not use of my power that
3 l. 11. c. 14. s 2. c. l. 6. c. 12. s 33. if not all the Ancients who generally hold this Law not possible to be fulfilled in this life and to require the highest degree of the love of God to the utmost perfection Yet who so great Admirers of the Ancients as they Let us return to the Doctors answer that those things were required by that Law I granted but more then this is also required 1. Perfect love with all the faculties and powers of the soul as the Ancients gloss it heart minde soul strength But where is the man that ever did or can do this A man may love God sincerely and above all other things the Doctors gloss and yet be far short of fulfilling this Commandment Saint Austin gives the reason So long as the flesh lusts against the spirit God is less loved then he ought The Law I said Required perfect love p. 221. n. 2. such as was in Adam in innocency 1 John 4.18 He answers 1. That perfect love in Adam p. 221. n. 2. had a latitude and consequently several degrees of that perfect love But this is proved false in both that Adams love had a latitude to love God with a less or lower degree then withall his heart soul c. and that there are degrees of perfect love 2. That perfect love in Saint John is not all one with that which Adam had in innocence for that I confess he says not to be acquireable in this life whereas the love in Saint John that casts out fear is in every Confessor and Martyr It 's no disparagement to his Confessors and Martyrs to say they had not perfect love of God many of them were fearful a long time even to denial of Christ at first and the best of them felt many reluctations of the flesh against the spirit but perfect love casts out all fear They loved God in sincerity and above all other things even their own lives yet were not perfect in love though God was pleased to pardon their defects and accept of their love c. There is no fear in love that is in perfect love so it follows perfect love casteth out fear and he that feareth is not made perfect in love But when shall love be made perfect Saint John answers ver 17. Herein or in this our love is perfected that we may have boldness at the day of Judgement Then love will be perfect and not till then how proves he this There is no fear in love he that feareth is not made perfect in love But the best Saint is here troubled with fear ergo And I again wonder that the Doctor should hold perfection of love in this life acquireable without all fear when he holds the best and highest degree of love and grace in his life may fail and be utterly lost Must not he that believes this be full of fear sometimes even tormenting fear How can he love God with all his heart minde soul strength that fears by reason of his own frailty and mutability of his will that fears God may be his enemy hereafter Nec hominem amicum possit quisquam amare cui noverit se aliquando fore inimicum August That one Martyr may be more zealous and express more intense and fervant love then another Proves what I say that neither of them are perfect in love the Commandment requiring perfect love in all Sincere love to be capable of degrees was never denied by me but affirmed yet not perfect love perfection is not capable of degrees but includes all degrees and what is short of that is faulty in vitio as Hierome said p. 222. n. 3. Sure says he if both obey the precept then they do not offend against it if not offend then is not this faulty Doth this beseem the Doctors learning a learned Catechist We know but in part and therefore believe but in part and obey but in part So far as we believe and obey so far we obey the precept but as we believe but in part and obey but in part so far we offend against it and so far in vitio and faulty Did not himself say p. 220. n. 54. Good works are not evill but good though not prefect from all possible mixture of sin If in our best works there be a mixture of sin do they not as far as they are good obey the precept and as there is a mixture of sin offend against it and so are faulty and sure every fault or vice must be a transgression of the Law as he says here The evasion is p. 222. n. 5. That it is not the sinless perfection we speak of when we say it consists in a latitude and hath degrees but sincerity of this or that virtue in this or that performance c. But first what ever he does he knows I spake of sinless perfection even in perfect love Otherwise it were not strictly answerable to the Law and so far faulty they are my words there And I know not how to say there is a sinful perfection without a contradiction 2. What does he less here then speak of a sinless perfection In this or that virtue in this or that performance and as this though it excludes not all mixture of sin in the man in whom it is yet may exclude it in this or that act for it is certain that I may in an act of mercy give as much as any Law obligeth me to give and so not sin in giving too little Ad p. 214. n. 39. This was spoken to before but here is more plainly expressed and I shall adde a little to it 1. If it may exclude a mixture of sin in this or that act by the grace of God in Christ for so he cautions it why may it not exclude by the same grace a mixture of sin in another act of virtue and so in a third and in all and so exclude it altogether in the man and then there is an universal sinless perfection in this life which he hath oft denied 2. But what needs any such grace of God to do that which may be done by an Heathen without grace He may in an act of mercy give as much as any Law obligeth him to give and so not sin in giving too little 3. Neither he nor the Doctor can determine aforehand how much the Law obliges him to give as was said above but it 's determinable onely by circumstances which then bring it under a command 4 Neither of them giving as much as the Law obligeth to do sin in giving too little but may they not sin in giving in the act of mercy some other wayes For want of Charity 1 Cor. 13.3 out of vain-glory in hope of meriting Matth. 6.1 2. c. The Pharisees it's like gave more then the Law obliged to their abundant righteousness as they called it yet here was a mixture of sin not onely in the men
place attending on any Act of it they will never be called Justice with any propriety Where 1. he leaves out whether negligently or willingly the other word Ceremonies For there may be some Ceremonies also in Publique Justice the Formalities of the Judges and Court c. He should have told us whether those may in any propriety be called Justice as Ceremonies in Religion are by some called and made Worship 2. He should now apply this distinction and illustration and tell us what now he meanes by Worship whether the vertue or some Act or degree frequency of it or the Ceremonies that is the circumstances of time and place if he mean the latter onely Circumstances of time and place as it is not comprehended in the word VVill-worship so it is not controverted between us as hath oft been said in the other Tract If he mean the former let him consider that he confutes himself from the beginning of this Discourse who maintains VVill-worship Uncommanded-worship men Devised-worship not VVill-ceremonies or VVill-circumstances of VVorship time or place which can with no more propriety be called VVorship then the same or the like Ceremonies or Circumstances in exercising of Justice can be called Justice But he is no less confused in the next for he says Secondly for the other part of the word will or choice of man it may be of four sorts distinguishable by the matter willed 1. When it is forbidden by God 2. Commanded but not ad semper 3. Left free 4. When though not indifferent nor forbidden but good in an high degree yet not under particular precept and so omitted without sin c. But here 's confusion enough 1. VVho ever distinguished the faculty of Will which is but one into four sorts according to the objects or matter of the things willed 2. Will in this word must be referred onely to Worship Will-worship which is either commanded or forbidden there 's none left indifferent 3. That there should be any thing which is neither indefferent nor forbidden nor commanded and yet good in an high degree is to me a mystery and some of the Doctors new Divinity It helps him not to say It is not under particular precept For if it be under a general precept it is under precept and so pro hic nunc as they say cannot be omitted without sin and if then done how it can be highly rewardable by God eo nomine because not under particular precept I am yet to seek of which more hereafter 4. His particular instances are nothing to the present purpose which is of the Will with relation to Worship and none of his instances are of Worship but other things We enquire what Will signifies in the word Will-worship whether it import willingness in commanded Worship or willing and instituting Worship not commanded To which all that distinction and discourse of the Doctor sayes nothing Onely he takes occasion from the last part of his distinction to empty his Note-book of what he had read of that notion of things good in an high degree neither indifferent nor forbidden nor commanded and yet highly rewardable by God wherein I shall not now follow him but consider it in a place more fit for it where we shall meet with it again We shal attend his application of that distinction n. 6. for the 5. p. 96. n. 6. is lost or rather his no-application of it for he tells us nothing in which of those four senses he takes the word will but comes presently to the word in composition the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Will-worship to distinguish of that and then tell us in what sense he does not or does take it And to confound us the more hath found out six wayes or things which it may denote 1. The performing any sort of worship to God forbidden by him which yet is not truly but equivocally called Worship c. Where I observe first That any sort of Worship forbidden by God is Will-worship and consequently Superstition and so Worship of Daemons is not the onely Superstition which the Doctor was very loath to grant in his former Tract 2. How warily he speaks which yet is not truely Worship but equivocally It 's sufficient first that the offerers think it truly Worship and then I would ask is not false Worship truly called Worship if Worship be properly distinguished into true and false as several species thereof as it is by the Doctor hereafter But we go on 2. The using any Ceremony in Gods Worship which is forbidden c. Now for these two the Doctor sayes He must readily acknowledge p. 97. n. 8. Was not the Worshipping of Angels a Wil-worship 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and forbidden they are criminous and he pleads not for them nor are they capable of that title of Will-worship But first Worship forbidden by God and devised and instituted by the meer Will of man may well be capable of the title of Will-worship but forbidden Worship is Worship devised instituted by the meer Will of man s 1. may well be called Will-worship 2. Worship not commanded by God or uncommanded Worship is forbidden by God as hath often been said proved ergo all uncommanded Worship that is set up by the meer will of man is criminous may well be called Will-worship 3. Ridiculous and unprofitable Ceremonies which though no where forbidden severally by God yet by their multitude become an hinderance to devotion a yoke too heavy for Christians What thinks he of these He professes his dislike of them p. 97. n. 9. yet thinks it not applicable to the notion of the word in the Apostle but rather to that in Epiphanius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 superfluity of Will-worship where still the fault is the superfluity c. and not the Vncommandedness of them Enough hath been said to this in the former Tract But I adde first The multitude orsuperfluity of Ceremonies made parts of Worship by men as they were by the Pharisees and are by Papists may well be capable of the title of Will-worship 2. The fault is not then onely the Superfluity for any one Ceremony made Worship by the Will of man Ceremony in common acception signifies external VVorship and being appointed by men any one is a Nimiety and Criminous as was said above is a Superfluity and too much and so criminous as Will-worship 3. Epiphanius taxes the Pharisees not onely for their superfluity of Ceremonies but for their Will-worship in them The Doctor then must not beg and take the word Will-worship in a good sense and talk of Superfluity of Will-worship 4. If these superfluous ridiculous Ceremonies be not applicable to the word in the Apostle Col. 2.23 Why does he make this one sense or one species of Will-worship Surely superfluous Ceremonies are one species of Superstition in the judgement not onely of others but of the Doctor himself in the former Tract and being imposed by the